Barth and Christian joy

On Friday, we read this rather uncharacteristic bit from Barth:
He talks about the oxymoron of a “gloomy, morose and melancholy Gospel” and then says, “A troubled Christian is per definitionem not a Christian, because as such he is definitely not in a position to be a witness of Jesus Christ. To be sure, it is not his personal joyousness which makes him a witness. For this is not what makes his witness true. But he can be enabled to give the true witness entrusted to him only when its content, which makes it true witness, gives him personal joy, making him a bright and merry Christian” (CD IV.3.2, 662).
I told the story of an older Christian gentleman in my first church who confided in me that, ever since a former pastor had preached on Revelation 21:8--that the fearful (KJV) will have a place in the lake of fire--and claimed that "fearful" includes "worried," he had been really worried! I was trying to make the connection that telling Christians who aren't "bright and merry" that they aren't real Christians isn't likely to make them any more joyous.
Then on Sunday, Nigel preached about joy from 1 Peter 1, and he made a really cool connection:
Our joy--and Barth would clearly agree--is dependent on the One in whose power we are securely held.

Barth on Fridays

Barth made me mad today. That’s a good thing, because it means 1) he’s making me question some basic things that I most likely have uncritically assumed, and 2) some of my thoughts are beginning to gel re: these important issues. In today’s reading, from IV-3-2, pp. 568-76, Barth takes on Quietists, Pietists, and assorted others for whom I have come to have a great appreciation (not least of which is Zinzendorf, whom I think Barth seriously misrepresents in this passage). As long as he was bashing existentialists and liberals, I could follow along, but now he’s cutting too close to my cherished assumptions. (First, I should say that I agree with his main point, which seems to be that Christianity is more about Jesus Christ than about my experience of or relationship with him.)
I’m afraid I dominated the conversation this morning with my strenuous objections that Barth is mistaken in looking (particularly in scripture) for the one main thing—in the good word that Allen used in deconstruction of my claim, a foundation—that characterizes true Christianity. (I’d just finished Kathryn Tanner’s Theories of Culture and I was ready for a fight, not least because of my disappointment that in the end she reverts to “obviously, the only tenable position is mine.”) I said this morning that scripture gives us instead a many-faceted picture that in its coherence portrays what it means to be a Christian. I came to realize this evening that my objection can be formulated in terms of what I’m trying to say in my thesis. One of the main things I see in Torrance is his insistence that relationality means holding things sufficiently apart to allow for distinction-in-relation and thus avoid dualism or the collapse of one into the other (or both into some kind of monad). Applied to Barth’s contention that the one thing that being-a-Christian is about is witness, I think it makes better sense to see that as only one side of a complementary relation. I’ve begun working through Kelso and Engström’s The Complementary Nature and, although they may be overly enthusiastic about their formulation, I think there is a lot to be said for their claim of complementarity’s ubiquity, and I have even begun to use their style of designation in my notes to self, with the tilde (~) expressing the relation between two contraries/complementaries: as in being “called to witness ~ called to belong.” (Leonard Sweet is on to something, I think, in his “MRI” (missional, relational, incarnational) in So Beautiful.) In fact, drawing on Jamie Smith’s contention in Desiring the Kingdom (does Jamie know that amazon is attributing his work to someone else?) that worship is more basic than either reason or belief, I think the complementary call to witness ~ to belong should be set under an even more “fundamental” designation gleaned from differing translations of Rom 8:1—present your bodies in spiritual worship ~ reasonable service.
There’s something further, though, and it’s the focus on conversion that I’m taking from Lonergan. I agree with Gelpi that it needs expansion—I’d say by way of what Jesus came preaching—and I’d express it as being called to repent ~ to respond (follow-in-allegiance). That, I think, requires another complementary pair, often expressed as movement from below ~ from above, and I think what bothers me in Barth is that he’s so vehement about the priority of the latter and the disequilibrium and non-reciprocal nature of the relation that he comes across as dismissing anything that “begins with” the Spirit’s work in our hearts. OK, I feel better now.

Advent

I'm thoroughly enjoying the Advent meditations from Goshen College. Today's posting is from Lisa Guedea Carreño, director of the Good Library. She writes,

"Preparing the way of the Lord doesn’t end when Advent ends, but begins anew and continues – until all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

. . . and all the members of our Barth reading group said, "Amen!" We read about union with Christ this morning, from CD IV 3.2, in the context of Barth's emphasis on vocation. We are always called on by the One who has gone/is going ahead, a thought that summons up C. S. Lewis's image of Aslan bounding on before, calling, "Come higher up and farther in!" (My poor paraphrase--apologies to Lewis.)

Conversion

We've been exploring some things at our Barth reading group lately that are resonating deeply with me and related closely to my studies. D. W. Horstkoettker at flying farther explains his reservations (not strong enough?) about evangelicals' focus on conversion as the central paradigm/narrative for Christian faith. I'd be surprised if DWH doesn't get some feedback from his Lonerganian friends at Marquette out of that blog post. A big part of my project involves looking at conversion in Lonergan, something that is central indeed to his thought (and, in a certain way, I argue, in his experience/history). There's a helpful summary/extension in Happel and Walter, and Donald Gelpi builds on this in Lonergan: here, for example.
Anyway, we ran short of time at the reading group this am, or I would have put forward a suggestion. David has at other times spoken of Barth's method in terms of two concentric circles and a back-and-forth movement between them such that their positions as inside & outside are exchanged. (Putting this in terms of background and foreground might be helpful.) I see this as very helpful applied to conversion.
When I push students in my Distance Learning course on evangelism & discipleship to explore what conversion is (something I do regularly), asking, among other questions, "Is conversion a point or a process?" I often (interestingly, not always) hear them speaking in linear terms, where "sanctification" is the process that continues after the point of "justification," or something similar. I think we would be much better served by 1) defining conversion simply as transformation, and 2) thinking in terms of a metaphor/analogy/model of concentric circles rather than (narrative and spiritual-life-as-journey) linear progression, building on the idea of centered sets in Paul Hiebert, for example (nice summary here).
What Barth's method adds is this: I have come to think of conversion, from my human perspective, in terms of point-within-process, but there is also the flip side where, in Christ, the process of my conversion is completely taken up within the point of Jesus' faithful obedience to his vocation (so I was converted, as Barth & more than one prominent student of his are reported to have said, on a hillside outside Jerusalem about AD 30--even more, I was converted when the Father chose the Son before the foundation of the world).

Assessing Intellectual Virtue

David Scobey, in his article, "Meanings and Metrics", Inside Higher Ed, March 19, 2009, notes the challenge that assessment poses when the goals for learning go beyond "informational content in a sub-discipline, performance of competent analyses according to check-listed rubrics." He calls for "a 'slow food' model of evaluation" via portfolios. What he has to say resonates to a great extent with the claim I am making about intellectual virtue.
There couldn't be a bigger contrast with the book I am trying to read now: David Ausubel's The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View (2000). The title says it all--learning is about acquiring and retaining information, and that is so, and therefore learning can be assessed, only by equating knowing with remembering. According to the author, this escapes being labeled rote learning if students are able, and are expected, to express the propositions that they have been taught (think transfer) in their own words. Further, he believes in his model: he proceeds as if constant repetition = a convincing argument. The book is a "revision" of his 1963 work, but I can't imagine that he's not just warming over (and at that only very lightly) his almost half-century-old ideas. Dismissing dissenting voices with the oddest arguments, he labels Gagne and Bruner behaviourists and says that those who criticize his position misrepresent it and set up a straw man to attack. Who needs a straw man when such a position and argument are so obviously weak?

Competing vs. Collaborating

Clarence at Remote Access is thinking about the negative side of competitive learning. I agree totally when he says,

I would argue that it is more likely that global cooperation and collaboration are the skills we should be aiming at promoting in schools and classrooms. Students who can think through problems with others, who know where to go for information and understanding, and who have the ability to see things from the perspective of another culture will be far more valued as employees; but more importantly as informed citizens, [than] the lone wolf who doesn't work well with others.

He notes that collaborative efforts are much more difficult to assess, but concludes,

Competitive learning reduces hundreds of hours of hard work to numbers, rankings and sorting charts. It dehumanizes and standardizes. . . . . We need to begin working more WITH the students in our classrooms and stop trying to do things TO them.

This is the kind of perspective that I really appreciate in the bit of the blogosphere that I follow, but I wonder--are Clarence and I on the same wavelength because we have similar personalities, or because we both live and work in areas remote from the competitive big city (he rather more than I)? Maybe it's also true that there's a big, bad competitive world out there and teaching for collaboration and cooperation is sending lambs among wolves . . .

Analogy

My friends and family regularly hear my confession that anything that has to do with numbers makes my head swim, so it's interesting to me how I find something like Dale Harris's latest post so fascinating. I think it's the power of analogy, and the fact that, without being able to comprehend all the details, I can get so caught up in the general idea when it's explained by a master teacher like Dale.
I've been reading Kieran Egan on education (The Educated Mind, 1997; Getting it Wrong from the Beginning, 2002; The Future of Education 2008). While his work is uneven in places and often quirky, he does provide a nice summary of the state of education in the West (not only his West at Simon Fraser U) when he depicts it as a struggle among those who see education as socialization, the traditionalists who see it as passing on academic knowledge to the next generation, and the progressivists who see it as learner-centred, focusing on individuals' development. I think he makes too much of, and is inconsistent in, his claim that it is a mistake to try to keep-in-tension the three perspectives, and it seems to me that he could rework his schema of the "cognitive tools" of somatic, mythic, romantic, philosophic, and ironic understandings to fit both lists into the framework of Activity Theory's subject/object/community with tools/rules/roles (division of labour) as put forward by Yrjö Engeström.
All of that to say that I think there's something correct about the current theological interest in participation, embodiment, analogy, etc. and it funds a keeping-in-tension of these aspects of education for the sake of preserving a sense of wonder in learning, arising from the created order, certainly, but at its heart generated and guided by the Spiritus Creator.

The Social Net [at] Work

Something important occurred to me as I was thinking about key parts of my research project, and I wondered how I might go about finding out whether I was on the right track. So, I turned to my (very informal) network. I'm not a dues-paying member of the T F Torrance Fellowship because their online payment system doesn't accept $ from Canada, and I noticed that the Fellowship's blog hasn't seen much action lately. But I've received valuable help before from Dr. Gary Deddo and Dr. Elmer Colyer, who are founding members, so I emailed with this question:

I admire TFT's strong position on the contingent nature of creation and there is a lot to be said in favor of his stance re: creation's intelligibility, but I just realized that I can't remember him making the connection that would seem to (necessarily) follow: that creation's intelligibility is contingent. I have read him as saying that, because of creatio ex nihilo and because in Christ all things hold together/he sustains all things by his powerful word, creation has an inherent intelligibility. Would contingent not be more consistent here than inherent? (It certainly could be simply that I am mistaken in my reading; the distinction has just now occurred to me, so I haven't been reading with that in mind.) In other words, would I be challenging, extending, going beyond, or drawing upon TFT by claiming that creation has no voice of its own but contingently depends on the Holy Spirit to (moment-by-moment) give to those seeking understanding what is needed to recognize the intelligibility of its internal structure?

It wasn't long before I heard from both. Here is Dr. Colyer's reply:

You are correct that Torrance should conceive of the intelligibility of the created order as contingent. However, Torrance does acknowledge and develop this explicitly. See my book, HOW TO READ TFT, pp. 168-73 for a summary and notes to the primary sources in Torrance's publications. You are also correct that this contingent order (rationality in human beings, intelligibility in creation) is dynamic and sustained continuously by the Word and Spirit of God, indeed, via Trinitarian perichoretic coactivity. However, it is also INHERENT in the created order by God's continuous activity. This is what provides creation with its stability, consistency, lawfulness that makes creation "open" to human rational investigation, so that scientists can be "priests of creation" who bring the contingent intelligibility of the contingent, free and spontaneous creation to orderly articulation in praise of the Triune Creator, the vast theater of the Glory of God!

I responded with

Thank you very much; this is very helpful. The both/and speaks to the idea of "knowledge"as both ontological, something in the world, and epistemological, something in the mind.

So this exchange relates to my thesis on at least a couple of levels: the social affordances of the internet made possible my asking the question of someone who knows and (combined with the gracious kindness of Drs. Deddo and Colyer) my receiving such a quick reply; also, this experience confirms the idea that knowledge is both verb-like ("knowing") in individuals' minds and noun-like (an object?) as distributed over a network.
Now, since I'm working away from home, I don't have access to How to Read T. F. Torrance. Had I bought anything from amazon.com, I could have searched inside and found the pages that Dr. Colyer is referring to. Alas, that feature isn't enabled for this book on amazon.ca (where, much to my wife's dismay, I'm a valued customer!), and Wipf & Stock, who have recently republished it at a very good price, don't offer "search inside." I notice, though, that I can check out a few pages of The Promise of Trinitarian Theology and also of The Nature of Doctrine in the Theology of T. F. Torrance.
So all the knowledge to which I need access isn't as easily available as the answer to my question above, but, if copyright issues are ever resolved (right, Tom?), a lot more could be!

Epistemology

Wow--a long hiatus! I've been working hard to try to understand and express what's central to my project, but nothing has ended up here for a long time. So here are some random thoughts (ok, not quite so random): On his blog, “Just in CASE,” Trevor Cairney responds to Tim Clydesdale’s “Wake Up and Smell the New Epistemology” in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I'm a little surprised by Trevor's linking of what he calls the position of the "deconstructive postmodernist" with the Eden temptation re: knowledge and with constructivism in the context of authority. I'm also very interested to see who has been linking to this YouTube video on a very similar topic. Where is the delicate balance between accepting (participating in) things because they are put forward by an authority and questioning/challenging those same things, perhaps for the same reason? I've been exploring in my own way the idea of "triangulation" that Kevin Vanhoozer is working on in his "On the Very Idea of a Theological System," a chapter in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology, edited by A. T. B. McGowan (IVP Academic, 2006), and I hope to be able to put together something similar "toward a theology of learning" for my project. Meanwhile, I'm struck by this from Clydesdale's article:

We need to teach as if our students were colleagues from another department. That means determining what our colleagues may already know, building from that shared knowledge, adapting pre-existing analytic skills, then connecting those fledgling skills and knowledge to a deeper understanding of the discipline we love. In other words, we need to approach our classrooms as public intellectuals eager to share our insights graciously with a wide audience of fellow citizens.

Participation

To respond to Dustin's comment on the previous post, here are some references to participation that I've gleaned from Torrance--on knowledge of God, conversion, and the church:

Regarding knowledge of God, “we know that we cannot attribute it to ourselves and know that we can only say something of how it arises by referring beyond ourselves to God's acts upon us—i.e. though it is our knowledge of Him, it is explicable only from the side of God as freely given participation in His self-knowledge. The epistemological relevance of the Holy Spirit lies in the dynamic and transformal aspects of this knowledge.” God and Rationality, 166.

He says that “in and through the Holy Spirit . . . God imparts himself to us in Christ in such a way as to lift us up to share in the Communion of Life and Love which God is in his own eternal Being.” He continues, “It is as Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit mutually mediate one another to us that our knowing of God is not confined to the objectified form of his self-revelation and self-communication but in and through it is made to terminate upon the transcendent Reality of God the Father.” Reality and Scientific Theology, 186.

“Human society cannot be transmuted into an authentic community of personal being merely through a redisposition of its diseased in-turned structures, for that cannot offset the steady disintegration and fragmentation that result from the conflict of group-egoisms so evident in our modern world. It is the conviction of the Christian faith that such a transmutation can take place only through the reconciliation of people with God and with one another and through a healing of personal and inter-personal structures in their ontological depths through participation in the creative source and fullness of personal being in the Communion of the Holy Trinity. Human beings need to be turned inside out in a profound inversion of their self-centredness and to be anchored in a transcendent centre of Love in God if they are to be persons freely open to one another and the universe which God has created.” Ibid., 197.

He talks about a “two-way movement in the realizing of divine revelation: from God to us and from us to God.” The church is “the Body of Christ, entrusted with the Word of God and commissioned to bear witness to the unique self-revelation of God to humankind as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The very existence and continuity of the church are thus inseparably bound up with the triune self-revealing and self-naming of God sealed upon it and all its constituent members in holy baptism.” For the church, then, “It is with this knowledge of God mediated to us in history through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments that we may now participate in the two-way movement from God to humankind and from humankind to God and thus continue to be in dialogue with him.” The church is “a community of reciprocity between humankind and himself, within which he continues to speak to us and make himself known.” “The Christian Apprehension of God the Father,” in Speaking the Christian God: The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of Feminism, ed. Kimel, 122-23.

Ecclesiology

As I worked through some material on and by those who speak of Radical Orthodoxy (as I realized I needed to do) and came upon the conversation between RO and Reformed scholars, especially in Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition, ed. Smith & Olthuis, I began to realize how much the discussion re: participation, analogy, etc. is tied up with ecclesiology. Then I read the pieces by John Webster and Ellen Charry in Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Husbands & Treier, and more started to click. It's probably just some quirk of my personality, but it seems to me that it should be possible--it may even be necessary--to glean the best from both covenantal and sacramental traditions, to preach from Colossians on both Christ's work of nailing our sins to the cross and being given fullness in Christ--so that's what I'm going to try to do on Sunday.
October: Thanksgiving (in Canada), elections (this year), Reformation Day--what else would I preach on but the church?

New blog

So . . . Dustin has (reluctantly) entered the blogosphere! I'd say "welcome," but that's probably inappropriate from someone who blogs as sporadically (randomly) as I do. Lots of good stuff already at ". . . A Resch Like Me," and I'm looking forward to lots more.
(The title makes me laugh--I can just imagine Dustin's "Mini-Me" coming out with that line.)

Something different

I'm among the least interested when it comes to politics--at every level, but particularly when it comes to those of our giant neighbour to the south. But I enjoy the "Van Peebles Land" blog of David Williamson (an Irishman in Wales!) and I have to shout out a huzzah for this clever post on President Bush II and his future.

Radical Orthodoxy

I've already forgotten whose footnote set me on the trail, but I suddenly realized that the language I've been using of participation and analogy, etc. is a significant part of the vocabulary of Radical Orthodoxy, so I've been trying to get up to speed with the way Milbank, Ward, Pickstock & co. are using those terms/notions. In the process, it finally twigged why John Webster chose, in his paper at the analogia entis conference, to deal with participation and plenitude. What at that time seemed so puzzling in that context was actually quite astute--he was connecting the way Hart and co. are looking at analogy with the same theme in RO (with a particular sidelong reference to Todd Billings).
It's fascinating to me how my project has fallen out exactly along the lines of what I'm saying about the change that the Internet has brought about in how people learn: I started with an interest in Thielicke's use of the Prodigal Son parable re: conversion, and that led me to conversion in Lonergan (via Gelpi, if I remember correctly). I can't remember how I started on Torrance, but I was fascinated to hear him talk of epistemological reversal, where the object of study grasps the learner rather than vice versa. I connected that with the insight I gained from Anna Sfard about acquisition and participation as two metaphors for learning and then began to see connections/patterns in the most interesting of places, so I've been clicking my way from one lead to the next, trying hard not to assume that everyone is using these terms in the same, or even commensurate, ways.
Now it's crunch time. Can I really draw this all together in a coherent piece of writing within the time allotted? Lord, in your grace . . .

Hey, Bert!

Sesame Street has to be one of those under-rated radically defining pieces of cultural change. Check out Bert and Ernie on using one's imagination.

Wesch lecture

Michael Wesch, the cultural anthropologist from Kansas State University who produced "The Machine is Us[ing Us]" and an hour-long (approx) YouTube video on his students' research on YouTube ("on" in multiple senses) unpacks the former in a lecture at the University of Manitoba recorded last June. This is a perfect introduction to what I'm trying to look at theologically.
Here's his class Netvibes page.

A profitable day

Our Distance Learning staff joined Moose Jaw teachers and administrators and guests from both Alberta and Manitoba for a day with Ewan McIntosh yesterday. Thanks to Dean Shareski for putting the day together. It was very valuable for us, and the debriefing session at our staff meeting this afternoon is just the start of what I am sure will be lots of innovation and creative ideas to come in the way we help our students learn (and learn from them).
One thing Ewan said and I'm still processing is that (can't remember who he was quoting) we can't get creative with a tool until its use is so familiar to us as to seem boring. I'm not by any means on the cutting edge of ed-tech tool use, but I have to remember that things now "old hat" to me are still new to many. Thanks to a good, full day in Moose Jaw, our staff is now much more familiar than before with what's available and how it might be put to use. Now we have some introductions to make for others in the institution . . .

TLt Conference

I'm enjoying the TLt conference in Saskatoon--the ID pre-conference yesterday, and the full conference today and tomorrow. It's a joy to see old friends (though some object to the "old" part--probably fearing the potential association with this old guy) and the presentations, both keynote and concurrent, have been very good. I finally met George Siemens face to face. I caught his opening keynote last night but wandered to a couple other concurrents this afternoon, so I'll have to check out the notes from that presentation. It's interesting comparing the "Information Processing Model" perspective from yesterday (so modern and foundationalist, with emphasis on the teacher telling students what's important) and the more constructivist/collaborative outlook of most presentations today (including Alan November's inspiring, informative sessions and a brave attempt by Brian Lamb to disturb our complacency). I'm beginning to wonder if the key piece that I want to focus on in the application part of my project is actually also a conversation--at this point, I'm thinking cognitivist / constructivist.
Two other things: I have some excellent take-aways re: digital literacy/critical thinking re: and via: the web, and it's interesting to be "part of the experience" as Heather Ross wonders about the usefulness/propriety of the backchannel. I leave my laptop in its case during sessions mostly because of its short battery life, but also because I need time to think about what to post, and writing notes in longhand (complete with doodles!) helps me condense my thoughts. On the other hand, I really ought to learn to write small pieces to be corrected/reshaped later rather than give in to what Brian Lamb labels the waterfall effect: waiting until everything is in place before going public.

Analogia entis conference

My friend David and I attended the analogia entis conference in DC last week. (If we need proof, there’s this photo. I’m the bald one wearing a green jacket—a raincoat that came in handy in DC’s soggy Cherry Blossom Festival weather.) I wish I had known that other bloggers were there. (Of course, I’m such an infrequent and tardy blogger that I hardly fit the category.) I found out since coming home that Joel Garver was at the conference, as was millinerd, and so was MM from Theology of the Body (three posts). Their summaries and impressions are very good; all I would add from my perspective, as neither a Barthian nor a Roman Catholic, is that it’s very encouraging to see scholars coming from such different perspectives honestly trying to understand one another. There were sharp defenses against the suggestion of weak ecclesiologies and Christologies, sure, but I guess I wasn’t aware before of just how much difference the choice of a starting point (roughly, metaphysics/being vs. revealed theology/Christology) can make. Interestingly, that didn’t come out as clearly as I would have expected in a contrast of Eastern and Western approaches. David Bentley Hart seems quite at home among Roman Catholic scholars, if not quite as comfortable with Barthians.

So, while I’m thinking along these lines of difference, I fortuitously come across something that pushes such thinking one step further. This video of a Ted Talk from Jill Taylor (a brain scientist talking about her experience of having a stroke) is fascinating for many reasons, but particularly so as I think about

Left Brain	Right Brain
Space and Time	Here and Now
Logic	Experience
Act	Being
Ordo salutis	Ordo relationis
noetic	ontic
empirical	metaphysical
Historie	Geschichte

I may have confused some of these, and correction will certainly be welcomed, but I think there may be something here. And now for what interests me most: If I were to add a column between and arrows representing interaction across the great divide, would it primarily be about analogy, metaphor, paradox?

Peer Review

I've heard the observation that the process of learning through reading blogs and publishing one's own is not really all that different from reading and publishing in print journals, except that it's light years faster. Of course, that's the first radical difference, but it dawned on me the other day that, although the blog conversation, through comments and linked posts, still uses third-person language, it has much more of a collaborative "talking with one another" feel than the old, strident, confrontational "talking about others" tone of academic debate in printed resources. Is this also mostly a function of the shortened response times? In print, scholars have significant lag time before somebody hammers them for one thing or another in their work and then another lag before they get their equally fiery response into print. Of course, my perspective is skewed by the way I "vote with my feet" re: who is worth listening to--I spend lots of time (maybe too much) following the friendly banter and civilized discourse in web communities; I would have no time for any who prefer bashing and flaming (and I'm dismayed whenever people I've come to respect slide over into that style in putting forward their strongly-held positions).